Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-03-17

appears by the auditors reports. All this
the State was aware of, as we'll as the re-
spondent, and the law Of 1878 was then
an act Of generosity on the part OF the
State 1t was purely gratuitous All
this may be without extending the scope
II should have nor the Interpretation OF
1t. If 1t be law, as it unquestionably Is,
that an act OF incorporation is to be
taken in favor of the State. such an act
as this before us is not to be construed
as importing any result against the State
which the words used do not imperstively
demand. The words OF a voluntary bene.
factor should never be used to include
any acts not obviously in his mind at the
time, especially one which would disturb
or injuriously affect system in which
there Ia much involved.
..The State contributes nothing to the
oounty's burdens; the county pays moth
ing into the State exchequer."
The chief justice explained that there
might be ambiguity In what seems per-
fsctly plain language and that, while
parole could not override written evil
dence, yet ii was always proper to con-
slider the situation and circumstances
amid which the written evidence was be.
kOtAdAs Aht RluiAAhlA an VAC bupbohHpI VI
tho Wilmington 81 Susquehanna railroad
corporation OF 1882. Neither the original
corporation nor its successor paid any
State tax except 81, 900 annually until the
capitation tax Of 1854 was enacted amid
the exigencies Of the war. The company
paid this oapitat:on tax, amounting in
seven months of 1872 to &7, 600 Ia 1883
the Legislature proceeded 10 tax
the capital stock, net earnings and
rolling stock of the plaintiif.
The plaintiff resisted and the United
States circuit court decided the tax on
rolling stock unconstitutional, but aus
tanned the tax on capital stock anil net
earnings. At the next session OF the
Legislature after this decision an act was
passed, amendat1ry of tho act OF 1869,
providing that the tax On capital stock
and net earnings be increated. ruis gave
the State revenue heat year of
| 1856, 1886, bringing with the act OF 1864
a sum of nearly S5U000. The chief JUS
tice adduced these facts to show why the
plaintiff should have sought the lesisla-
ton Of 1873, to secure it against still
further advance within the power OF the
State to levy. On the part of the State
there must have been some feeling that
the amount exaoted, nearly $500 per
year and well nigh certain to increase, was
larger than In fairness should be exacted.
The contention is that county taxes
should be construed as State taxes. For
the same reason city and school taxes are
also State taxes, though, s'when the situa-
ton and circumstances are considered,
am not willing to believe that the Legis.
lature meant the language to apply to
county taxes, city taxes and school taxes. I"
Besides, the State treasurer was to dis
charge this taxation. What had the State
treasurer to do with county taxes, with
the corporation taxes of the city of Will
mington, with school taxes Absolutely
nothing. If all taxes are State taxes Il
would be applicable as we'll to marsh taxes
and ditch taxes. By the contention of
the plaintiff, supported by the decree,
they are in pari materia. The State had
no benefit from the act; the benefit was
on the plaintiff alone.
The chief Justice concluded with the
opinion that the injunction should be dis
solved.
Judge Houston added that, in q recent
consultation with the late Judge Wootten,
the latter took the same view of the case
expressed by the majority of the court.
Decree affirmed and the appellant or
dered to pay the costs. Rodney and
Bradford for appellant; Massey for re-
spondent,